Removing Regulations Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 51420-51422 [2010-20634]

Download as PDF 51420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations is likely inconsistent with congressional intent. • Submission of no-defect DVIRs can add to congestion and delay at intermodal facilities. A no-defect DVIR does not add in any meaningful way to the safety of IME and therefore does not justify such congestion and delay. • An estimated 96 percent of the chassis in-gated at intermodal facilities have no known damage or defect. If nodefect DVIRs are required, there is a significant risk that the 4 percent of DVIRs with damage or defects could be lost in the volume of no-defect DVIRs or result in delays in correcting reported defects at often overburdened marine, rail, and other terminals. • Data transmission, processing, and storage requirements for no-defect DVIRs add significant, unnecessary costs to intermodal operations with no apparent offsetting benefits. The petitioners request that § 390.42(b) of the FMCSRs be amended as follows: jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES (b) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated agent, any known damage, defects, or deficiencies in the intermodal equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider or the provider’s designated agent. The report must include, at a minimum, the items in § 396.11(a)(2) of this chapter. If no damage, defects, or deficiencies are discovered by the driver, no report shall be required. FMCSA Analysis of the Petition The Agency has reviewed the petitioners’ request and finds that it has merit. In developing the 2008 final rule, FMCSA determined that the DVIR requirements for IME should be consistent with the long-standing driver- and motor carrier-DVIR requirements in § 396.11 for non-IME. Section 396.11(b) calls for a DVIR to be prepared to indicate not only any defects or deficiencies discovered by or reported to the driver that would affect the safety or operation of the vehicle, but also to indicate if the driver found no defects or deficiencies. The Agency notes that § 390.40(d) of the FMCSRs requires an IEP to ‘‘Provide intermodal equipment that is in safe and proper operating condition.’’ More specifically, § 390.40(i) requires that at facilities at which the IEP makes IME available for interchange, the IEP must (1) develop and implement procedures to repair any equipment damage, defects, or deficiencies identified as part of a pre-trip inspection, or (2) replace the equipment. As such, the existing regulations provide a system of checks and balances to ensure that all IME offered for interchange is in safe and VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:03 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 proper operating condition—regardless of whether the motor carrier prepared a DVIR for IME that had no damage, defects, or deficiencies at the time it was returned. The Agency also agrees with the petitioners that the existing requirement for motor carriers to submit no-defect DVIRs goes beyond the specific requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(L), and appears likely to provide negligible safety benefits. The FMCSA also notes that, in addition to the petitioners, two other industry stakeholders, the American Trucking Associations’ Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference (ATA–IMCC) and IANA, have written the Agency in support of the petition to eliminate the requirement for no-defect DVIRs. This support, in conjunction with the reasons outlined above, has persuaded the Agency to initiate rulemaking on this issue. Copies of documents submitted by the ATA–IMCC, OCEMA, and IANA have been placed in the docket. Conclusion After completing its review and analysis of the petition, FMCSA has determined that the petition has merit and that a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding should be initiated to provide all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the matter. The Agency plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking at a later date to propose eliminating the portion of § 390.42(b) that requires motor carriers to prepare and transmit a DVIR to the IEP upon returning the IME, even when the IME has no known damage, defects, or deficiencies. Partial Extension of Compliance Date While the Agency is conducting the rulemaking discussed above, FMCSA extends until June 30, 2011, the June 30, 2010, compliance date of the December 2009 final rule, specifically with respect to the requirement in § 390.42(b) for drivers and motor carriers to prepare a DVIR on an item of IME if no damage, defects, or deficiencies are discovered by, or reported to, the driver. Issued on: August 13, 2010. William Bronrott, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2010–20603 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 83 [Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2010–0009] [91400–5110–POLI–7B; 91400–9410–POLI– 7B] RIN 1018-AX00 Removing Regulations Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing our regulations implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. The Act authorized financial and technical assistance to States to design conservation plans and programs to benefit nongame species; however, funds never became available to carry out the Act, and we do not expect funds to become available in the future. DATES: This rule is effective on September 20, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703–358–2156. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background The Service manages or comanages 54 financial assistance programs. Our Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program manages, in whole or in part, 19 of these programs. We implement some of these programs via regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), particularly in subchapter F ‘‘Financial Assistance— Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program,’’ which currently includes parts 80 through 86. The regulations at part 83 implement the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901–2911). This act authorized the Service to give financial and technical assistance to States and other eligible jurisdictions to design conservation plans and programs to benefit nongame species. The regulations tell the fish and wildlife agencies of the 50 States, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa how they can take part in this grant program. However, neither the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act nor any subsequent legislation established a E:\FR\FM\20AUR1.SGM 20AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations continuing source of funds for this grant program, nor have annual Appropriations Acts provided any funds for it. In 1984, the Service’s Western Energy and Land Use Team prepared a document identifying potential funding sources, but none of these options were adopted. Congress has appropriated funds in recent years for State conservation planning and programs to benefit nongame species, but none of these grant programs has been under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Instead, Congress made funds available through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration grant program in 2001 and—during each year since 2002—the State Wildlife Grants program. Based on this 30–year record, we do not expect that the grant program authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 will receive any funding. Therefore, we are removing its implementing regulations from title 50 of the CFR. Public Comments We published our proposed rule to remove the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980’s implementing regulations (50 CFR 83) in the May 6, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 24862) and invited public comments for 60 days, ending July 6, 2010. During the public comment period, we received one comment. We reviewed and considered that comment, and we determined that it was not applicable to the specific proposed action described in our proposed rule. Therefore, we made no changes to our proposed action in this final rule. Required Determinations jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under E.O. 12866. OMB bases its determination on the following four criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government. (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies’ actions. (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:03 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to consider the impact of rules on small entities, i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. If there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency must perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This is not required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to state the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are removing a regulation governing an unfunded grant program. Consequently, we certify that the removal would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities; a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. In addition, this rule is not a major rule under SBREFA and would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Does not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The Act requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of a rule with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. We have determined the following under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: a. As discussed in the determination for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51421 b. This rule does not require a small government agency plan or any other requirement for expenditure of local funds. c. There are no mandated costs associated with this rule. d. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; i.e., it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Takings This rule will not have significant takings implications under E.O. 12630 because it will not have a provision for taking private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism This rule will not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It will not interfere with the States’ ability to manage themselves or their funds. Civil Justice Reform The Office of the Solicitor has determined under E.O. 12988 that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of the Departmental Manual (DM). This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/ assessment is not required because this action qualifies for the categorical exclusion for administrative changes provided in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, section 1.10. Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes E:\FR\FM\20AUR1.SGM 20AUR1 51422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations under the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2. We have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the tribes’ ability to manage themselves or their funds. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use and requires agencies to prepare Statements of VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:03 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and would not affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects is required. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 83 Fish, Grant programs—natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. U.S.C. 2901, we amend subchapter F of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: ■ Part 83—[Removed and Reserved] ■ Remove and reserve part 83, consisting of §§ 83.1 through 83.21. Dated: July 28, 2010. Thomas L. Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Regulation Promulgation [FR Doc. 2010–20634 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 16 BILLING CODE 4310–55–S ■ PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20AUR1.SGM 20AUR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51420-51422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20634]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 83

[Docket No. FWS-R9-WSR-2010-0009]
[91400-5110-POLI-7B; 91400-9410-POLI-7B]
RIN 1018-AX00


Removing Regulations Implementing the Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Act

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 
our regulations implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 
1980. The Act authorized financial and technical assistance to States 
to design conservation plans and programs to benefit nongame species; 
however, funds never became available to carry out the Act, and we do 
not expect funds to become available in the future.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 20, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 703-358-2156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Service manages or comanages 54 financial assistance programs. 
Our Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program manages, in whole or in 
part, 19 of these programs. We implement some of these programs via 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
particularly in subchapter F ``Financial Assistance--Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Program,'' which currently includes parts 80 through 
86.
    The regulations at part 83 implement the Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911). This act authorized the 
Service to give financial and technical assistance to States and other 
eligible jurisdictions to design conservation plans and programs to 
benefit nongame species. The regulations tell the fish and wildlife 
agencies of the 50 States, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the 
Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories 
of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa how they can take 
part in this grant program. However, neither the Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Act nor any subsequent legislation established a

[[Page 51421]]

continuing source of funds for this grant program, nor have annual 
Appropriations Acts provided any funds for it. In 1984, the Service's 
Western Energy and Land Use Team prepared a document identifying 
potential funding sources, but none of these options were adopted.
    Congress has appropriated funds in recent years for State 
conservation planning and programs to benefit nongame species, but none 
of these grant programs has been under the authority of the Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Act. Instead, Congress made funds available 
through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration grant program in 2001 
and--during each year since 2002--the State Wildlife Grants program. 
Based on this 30-year record, we do not expect that the grant program 
authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 will 
receive any funding. Therefore, we are removing its implementing 
regulations from title 50 of the CFR.

Public Comments

    We published our proposed rule to remove the Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Act of 1980's implementing regulations (50 CFR 83) in the 
May 6, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 24862) and invited public comments 
for 60 days, ending July 6, 2010. During the public comment period, we 
received one comment. We reviewed and considered that comment, and we 
determined that it was not applicable to the specific proposed action 
described in our proposed rule. Therefore, we made no changes to our 
proposed action in this final rule.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under E.O. 
12866. OMB bases its determination on the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to consider the 
impact of rules on small entities, i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions. If there is a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the agency must perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This is not 
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to state the 
factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We are removing a regulation governing an unfunded grant program. 
Consequently, we certify that the removal would not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities; a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is not required.
    In addition, this rule is not a major rule under SBREFA and would 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Does not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government 
agencies; or geographic regions.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector. The Act requires each Federal agency, to the extent 
permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of a 
rule with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, 
of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 
year. We have determined the following under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act:
    a. As discussed in the determination for the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    b. This rule does not require a small government agency plan or any 
other requirement for expenditure of local funds.
    c. There are no mandated costs associated with this rule.
    d. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year; i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings

    This rule will not have significant takings implications under E.O. 
12630 because it will not have a provision for taking private property. 
Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism

    This rule will not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant 
preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It will not 
interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Office of the Solicitor has determined under E.O. 12988 that 
this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets 
the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of the Departmental Manual 
(DM). This rule does not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An 
environmental impact statement/assessment is not required because this 
action qualifies for the categorical exclusion for administrative 
changes provided in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, section 1.10.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian 
tribes

[[Page 51422]]

under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-
Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 
22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2. We have determined that there are no 
potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the tribes' 
ability to manage themselves or their funds.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that significantly affect energy 
supply, distribution, and use and requires agencies to prepare 
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This 
rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and would 
not affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 83

    Fish, Grant programs--natural resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 16 
U.S.C. 2901, we amend subchapter F of chapter I, title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, as follows:
0
Part 83--[Removed and Reserved]
0
Remove and reserve part 83, consisting of Sec. Sec.  83.1 through 
83.21.

    Dated: July 28, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-20634 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.